RAMANUJAM, J.

The petitioner in both these cases, admittedly a dealer in salt, did not submit returns for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 under section 12(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, presumably on the basis that the transaction in salt did not attract the levy of sales tax. However, there was a surprise inspection of the petitioner's place of business on 26th July, 1964, by the sales tax authorities and certain slips and pocket-note books had been recovered, in the presence of the petitioner's agent one Kalyanasundaram and also another clerk by name Velayudham. A surprise inspection of the residence of Kalyanasundaram was also made on the same date and some slips and pocket-note books were also recovered. Statements were taken from the said Kalyanasundaram as well as Velayudham at the time of the seizure of the slips and pocket-note books. In the statement given by Kalyanasundaram, he has admitted that the slips and anamath note books related to the transactions of the petitioner in goods other than salt. A similar statement was also made by the clerk Velayudham. Based on these slips and anamath note books recovered from the place of business of the petitioner as well as the residence of Kalyanasundaram, the assessing officer estimated the turnover of the petitioner for 1962-63 at Rs. 5, 51, 891.82 and for 1963-64 at Rs. 5, 36, 104.45. He issued pre-assessment notices for these two years calling upon the assessee to put forward his objections to the proposed assessment. After hearing the objections of the assessee, final assessments were made for both the years on 30th September, 1964, whereunder the petitioner was assessed to tax on the said turnover on the basis of the best judgment and also penalty of Rs. 10, 461.00 was levied for 1962-63 and Rs. 9, 815 for 1963-64 under section 12(3) of the Act. These assessments were unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as well as before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner seeks to challenge the said assessments before this court on various grounds.Firstly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the assessments could not be justified on merits, and that the authorities below have erroneously proceeded to make the best judgment assessments on the basis of the slips and pocket-note books which do not concern his business at all and that he is dealing only in salt and not in any other commodity. It is also urged that the authorities below should not have accepted the statement given by Kalyanasundaram as it was not voluntary and that the affidavits filed by the various dealers who are said to have purchased the commodities from the petitioner should have been accepted on their face value as the veracity of the statements made in those affidavits had not been controverted by examination of the deponents of the affidavits. We are not in a position to accept the contention of the petitioner that the best judgment assessments made in respect of these two years cannot be justified on merits. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not make any return in respect of the commodities said to have been covered by the slips and note books recovered as a result of surprise inspection. The petitioner's case that he was dealing only in salt and not in any other commodity has rightly been rejected by the authorities in view of the recoveries of the slips and note books from his place of business. It is also not established that the petitioner's agent Kalyanasundaram was under any duress when he made the statement on 26th July, 1964, at the time of the recovery of the anamath slips and pocket-note books. The statement of Kalyanasundaram made at the earliest possible opportunity cannot be said to have been non-voluntary as alleged by the petitioner. The finding given by the authorities below including the Tribunal that the slips and the note books recovered as a result of surprise